5 ms·
> No, there's oral testimony which claims there is evidence. Look, this is not correct. David Grusch has provided evidence to the appropriate parties, and this
by King-Aaron 3y ago
> No, there's oral testimony which claims there is evidence.
Look, this is not correct. David Grusch has provided evidence to the appropriate parties, and this has been confirmed by the IG and congress. If this was not the case, it would have already been said that he did not provide evidence for his claims.
It is disingenuous to make your claim that this is only oral testimony, and that's even without considering the hard sensor evidence provided by the other pilots involved in this hearing.
- ggm 3y agoHis evidence is of UAPs. What I read says all the alien origins and lifeforms is still contested. That real things happen and are under review isn't disputed, the SIGINT alone will make this SCIF only material. What's disputed is the alien intelligence part. He didn't out names because that's a crime, congress or not. Pilots don't talk about UFO because it's career limiting not because they don't experience anomalies. Anomalies happen. They aren't aliens from outer space and nothing he said makes me believe otherwise, nor the secrecy which is explicable from purely human, legal and logistical and strategic reasons. That Chinese weather balloon was a UAP. And, the depth of US capability to detect, understand, image and analyse it remotely as well as interdict it, is a secret for obvious reasons.
- King-Aaron 3y ago> His evidence is of UAPs His evidence is not public which is why I would consider waiting to be a better option than spouting opinions. For the record I don't feel that this is anything more than a result of Chinese whispers within departments that's now likely to expose broad mismanagement of funds (and of course I do also think alien technology would be "cool"), but I find it astounding that so many people want to announce opinions when they don't have the full suite of information. Hence my initial comment, as there is a low but non zero chance that we may be surprised.
- ggm 3y agoWhat's your floor on low. My floor is zero. My ceiling is also zero. The funds mismanagement has nothing to do with aliens existing nor does the oath he took to present to congress. Do you have no memory of Oliver North? What people say in these exercises and what it means are divergent.
- King-Aaron 3y agoWell considering the recent news I wouldn't say zero.
- ggm 3y agohttps://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/pentagon-ufo-boss-congress-hearing-00108822 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/pentagon-ufo-boss-c...
- King-Aaron 3y agoI don't think anyone finds it surprising that the guy in charge of the organisation being accused of covering up evidence is upset about this.
- ggm 3y agoSo you completely discount his rebuttals of any substance over alien proofs?
- King-Aaron 3y agoNo? I'm simply waiting to see what the evidence turns out to be before drawing a conclusion loudly and publicly about it.
- ggm 3y agoHere is my take on your view: it's too early to say because the evidence is still secret. Here is the substance of my response: the reasons the evidence will remain secret is the nature of US strategic interest in keeping its SIGINT capability secret. It has nothing to do with aliens, because no credible evidence of aliens has ever been seen or discussed since the inception of the program. "Unexplained" is the strongest statement made of any phenomena. There could or could not be evidence of aliens It's immaterial to why this is secret